ISPs with a Commitment to No Discretionary Censorship

puyo on 20/03/2019 - 14:34

Hey,

Just found out Telstra, Optus, Vodafone and TPG have started blocking some websites using their own discretion. I'm wondering if anyone has seen, or possibly any smaller ISP reps exist here on OZB, any ISP make a statement they wouldn't selectively block any website beyond an official government list. Usually I'd go check the threads on Whirlpool for this sort of thing, but Simon Wright seems to be going around locking all the threads discussing it.

Some quotes:

Telstra released a statement in which Networks and IT Executive Nikos Katinakis explained, “We understand this may inconvenience some legitimate users of these sites, but these are extreme circumstances, and we feel this is the right thing to do.”

A spokesperson for Vodafone said that the company would only usually block access to a site on the request of law enforcement or the courts, but that this “was an extreme case which we think requires an extraordinary response… While there were discussions at an industry level about this issue, this is a decision Vodafone Australia came to independently,” the statement said. Optus said it made its decision after “reflecting on community expectations.”

I'm aware that I could use an alternate DNS or VPN to bypass these blocks, and I'm sure the people seeking the content in question will go ahead and do just that. Really just looking for an ISP that isn't going to block access depending on what they feel is the "right thing to do".

I'm also aware I can (and will) contact ISPs myself to ask them myself, as well as complain to my own - however I see OZB as a useful tool for crowd sourced discussion on lawful consumer options, so hopefully this doesn't get wiped here too.

Cheers

Internet

Comments

              • Cave Fire on 23/03/2019 - 00:03
                +1

                @Gnostikos: Don't think we are up to AI that can detect whether novel videos are illegal or not.

                • Gnostikos on 23/03/2019 - 01:01
                  +1

                  @Cave Fire:

                  Don't think we are up to AI that can detect whether novel videos are illegal or not.

                  It already does and has for a while now. See this and this.

                  However it will require a hell of a lot more development than the social media companies claim they're investing in this technology before it's actually going to come close to equalling human moderation.

        • Ahbal on 22/03/2019 - 21:35
          +5

          ahahah go away.

          It was well known that 8chan /pol/ (i.e the group where the shooter posted) was being monitored by the feds to get a heads up on any activities like the one that happened. However, as we know it still happened.

          Twitter and Facebook? Same deal. Only reason they dont get blocked is $$$.

          Stop pretending the "authorities" care about safety. Just like how speed cameras are all about revenue raising (anyone who doesnt believe this needs to see the bright yellow ones in europe), same applies to social media.Anything that doesn't turn a big revenue is censored no worries.

      • machej on 21/03/2019 - 19:17

        Zerohedge never had the video of the shooting and got banned temporarily.

    • Beanvee on 20/03/2019 - 15:15
      +19

      4chan, 8chan, voat and liveleak are what most ISP's are banning.
      4chan's political board tends to be right leaning, although they have so many boards unrelated to politics, to say it's right leaning as a whole would be disingenuous.
      Don't know for 8chan or liveleak. Looking at voat's front page content it suggests right leaning.

      No cause for celebration no matter your lean though, censorship is bad for everyone.

        • pinchies on 20/03/2019 - 16:30
          +20

          People who don't know their history never see the problem with blocking what they judge to be bad speech.

            • pinchies on 20/03/2019 - 17:02
              +16

              @Bid Sniper: That's a strawman argument – but to be clear, I am not pro-ISIS, and I completely disagree with the actions and motives of the shooter.

              It's not about me "keeping websites up" because I want to see horrific content distributed. These companies have been explicitly saying they have been taking down these sites, because they don't want to share the (undeniably evil) message of the shooter. They are private companies, and it is their choice to do what they want. However, they should not be surprised if customers reject their interference, as unwarranted censorship. Unless we understand the perspective of the shooter, I don't think we have much of a chance to stop it spreading.

              I think that public discussion and conversation, means that people who visit say an ISIS website, do so with some understanding and context of the actions of ISIS - sharing truth combats propaganda and radicalisation.
              In contrast, censorship grows distrust, ignorance, doubt, and in reality does little to combat grass-root radicalisation. (Plus, DNS blocks are trivially easy to circumvent!)

              • havebeerbelywillsumo on 20/03/2019 - 17:39
                +10

                @pinchies: Plus to you and a neg to the strawman. Censorship of what "I don't like so I'll save you from that evil cos it's obvious you can't think/choose for yourself" is rarely good in the long run.

                • stinkydog on 21/03/2019 - 12:42
                  +6

                  @havebeerbelywillsumo: Following such events which become so politically charged one may feel the need to verify the facts themselves, and so they should. I was tempted to find out his message shortly after the event to clarify whether he's right-wing or psycho, so many media outlets claimed it was a right wing attack and didn't even class it as far-right or simply delusional. Add sensorship of the event and suddenly any right-wing person becomes a modern day Hitler because the population cannot verify the facts and use their intellect to draw their own conclusions. People who hold far-right or far-left views should be relocated to head or tail because their views differ so greatly from the wings.

                  • Georgevic on 21/03/2019 - 18:16
                    -3

                    @stinkydog: Well yes, it was a right-wing attack and any right-winger who spreads Islamophobic hate is complicit. Quite simple there.

                    • stinkydog on 21/03/2019 - 18:20

                      @Georgevic: Lol

                      • Georgevic on 21/03/2019 - 18:23

                        @stinkydog: What's so funny about right-wing terrorism? Are 50 murders a laughing matter for you? All because you can't handle a bit of chili.

                        • stinkydog on 21/03/2019 - 18:37
                          +4

                          @Georgevic: I was laughing at how poorly you comprehended my message. And whoever has been down-voting us.
                          I do not appreciate your poor attitude. Would you please provide more insight as to what you mean by "just because you can't handle a bit of chili".

              • Bid Sniper on 21/03/2019 - 15:43

                @pinchies: SO what about child molesters, should they have an open forum too?

                • stinkydog on 21/03/2019 - 18:53
                  +6

                  @Bid Sniper: There is a difference between sharing illegal content, spreading hate, and discussion.

              • MessyG on 21/03/2019 - 20:30

                @pinchies: May I just point something out here while revealing my age - the Internet is a privilege. It is not a right. This freedom of speech that everyone hangs onto (which I might also point out that in Australia is not enshrined in constitution like the US) is as free as the corporations who run the Internet want it to be. A private company running 4chan might decide that all speech should be 'free' even if that includes what has happened recently, while an ISP, another privately run company does not agree and decides to block it. These are the decisions of companies with corporate interests.

                If someone were to get up on a soapbox in the middle of the city tomorrow and start banging on about immigration, they wouldn't be arrested. No one from the government would beat them. If someone started handing out pamphlets saying the same, that wouldn't be policed either. So while everyone might be getting upset about ISPs blocking certain content - they're a private company, they can do what they want. Is it censorship if it's corporation mandated? If there was no Internet, what would free speech look like? We pay for this privilege to speak our minds, there's absolutely nothing free about that. Where does it leave people who can't afford the Internet? Are they the ones being truly censored here?

                I don't have answers to these questions but I just want everyone to remember that before the Internet, we weren't having to pay to speak our minds, we just did it down the pub.

                • pinchies on 22/03/2019 - 18:27

                  @MessyG: I think that discussions on the internet deserves to be treated the same as in real like - just like a pub can ban people who get rowdy, websites should be able to block trolls and abusive people. But just like taxi's are not allowed to discriminate against people who disagree with their political views, and internet providers should be very very careful about getting into the judgement/discretionary-based content blocking role. I'd rather leave moderation to the websites to handle.

                • belongsinforums on 23/03/2019 - 09:58
                  +1

                  @MessyG: akshually human rights promoters disagree with you https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/background-paper…

                • Plug on 23/03/2019 - 11:49

                  @MessyG: You didn't say how old you are

          • Georgevic on 21/03/2019 - 19:04

            @pinchies: Speaking of history - guess who else pulled the "MY FREE SPEECH IS BEING SUPPRESSED!" card? Hitler. What happened next?

            • [Deactivated] on 24/03/2019 - 18:33
              +2

              @Georgevic: And Hitler was vegetarian.

              I had some greens with my lunch. I didn't feel the need to exterminate the Jews.

        • vicosads on 21/03/2019 - 11:52
          +5

          Inability to discuss certain topics is what causes radicalization, if you are unable to have a conversation for some people there is only one other step that makes sense.

          • Georgevic on 22/03/2019 - 08:01
            -3

            @vicosads: Lol yeah that's what causes it, which is why this guy, who was allowed to discuss 'certain topics', did this. Nice one.

            The people saying this stuff are 100% sympathetic to his views and just afraid to say it.

        • OzBarAnon on 21/03/2019 - 15:42
          +6

          Like @enceladus94 said, 4chan's pol board is mostly right leaning (at least on the surface). However, it's home to boards like /ck/ which is about cooking, /sp/ for sport and /g/ for tech discussion among many others. So calling the entire site a 'pro Nazi child molester' site is extremely dishonest. Not to mention blocking of sites like archive.is which obviously has no real political bent

          • Bid Sniper on 21/03/2019 - 15:47
            +1

            @OzBarAnon: Totally, spent some time on 4chan some interesting and funny $#!t there. Totally believe in freedom of speech but there needs to be limits on insane parts of those forums which to be fair is a minority. Reddit I find over moderated

            If they purged the nazi and child molester parts then they wouldn't be banned. Would probably be a bigger community too

            • OzBarAnon on 21/03/2019 - 15:52
              +8

              @Bid Sniper: Think what you want about the content of the sites, but my real problem with this lies in how the ISPs are going out of their own way to begin censoring access without any legal backing or enforcement. It's one thing for them to do it under court order, it's another for them to play morality police with their customer base.

              I pay them for access to the internet, not to tell me what I can use it for. And there's no way it's a good PR move because I doubt anyone in the general public would pressure them to crack down. And obviously more people are opposed to them in this move than supportive.

              • Bid Sniper on 21/03/2019 - 17:25

                @OzBarAnon: Totally agree.

                I think some self moderation would go along way from stopping the government coming in and monitoring everyone. Which they are doing now with NFI how to do it.

                Last thing i want is a WeChat style internet. I think best way to prevent that is self moderation in an effort to keep government out of ISPs by giving them little incentive to do so.

                If it means kicking out nazi, child molesters and Isis supporters offline, its a small price to pay for the greater good.

                • OzBarAnon on 21/03/2019 - 17:40

                  @Bid Sniper: I disagree with the self moderation. The problem with that can be seen right now. There are only a few ISP available and it's not as easy as just changing service overnight if you don't like it. So if the big ones all decide to censor then there's nowhere for the people to turn and as corporations,they don't answer to the people.

                  While I do want minimal government interference on the net, letting ISPs be in control is not the answer. At least with governments they need to justify and legislate through court and (theoretically) the public can push their representatives to oppose or reverse the decision (and boot in the next election cycle if they don't). Corporations can just tell you to suck it and there's nothing that you can do about it.

                  • Bid Sniper on 21/03/2019 - 19:27
                    -1

                    @OzBarAnon: I mean more these websites (and users) self moderate and purge the extreme illegal and dangerous stuff out. I rather not have suits be it ISP or politicians coming down on us all because a few nutjobs were allowed to fester on these sites. These nutjobs will use free speech to protect themselves but in the long run will screw up the internet for everyone else, already have. Thats where're going, its all the nanny state needed to be spying and controlling on all of us. once that genie is let out impossible to put back in, no protest will do that.

                    So there needs to be self moderation otherwise its WeChat for all of us. Purging nazi, child molesters and Isis supporters offline is a small price to pay.

                    • MessyG on 21/03/2019 - 20:41
                      -1

                      @Bid Sniper: I think a very clear code of conduct from these websites that reflects their values would be good. No paedophilia, no aggression, no extremism from any corner - even the super pro free speech sites really need to draw a line. 'Truth' (whatever that means to people) can be delivered in a way that is not aggressive.

                      • Bid Sniper on 21/03/2019 - 23:04

                        @MessyG: Aggression and trolling is fine. Its what makes forums fun. People that dont like that, thats what lamebook is for, snowflake safe space.

                        I dont want people's right to be a$$holes to be taken away. In fact i want the opposite by purging nazis and pedos, leave the rest to flame on for lulz.

        • Yotta00 on 22/03/2019 - 05:43
          +3

          Facebook is a feeding ground for radicalisation, and responsible for coordinating the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya people. Facebook did not give a shit until the media reported on it.

          • Bid Sniper on 22/03/2019 - 08:51

            @Yotta00: Good point, now the hammer is coming down on Facebook as well, rightly so.

        • web1993 on 22/03/2019 - 09:47
          +4

          Censorship CAUSES radicalisation. When people can't express their views on an open platform they start going to alternative sites and live in a bubble on the internet.

        • Ahbal on 22/03/2019 - 21:36

          Blocking sites like 4chan and 8chan (that are easily monitored) would just force those extremists to go further underground and become harder to track and monitor.

      • Tyrx on 21/03/2019 - 17:57
        +5

        Liveleak was removing the videos and banned the individuals who uploaded it - there was so much outcry about censorship from liveleak themselves that they had to go on their twitter account and explain why they were doing it. The banning of some of these sites is pure optimism and governmental overreach, and this is coming from someone that doesn't like the type of content that gets uploaded to those sites.

    • Wystri Warrick on 20/03/2019 - 22:10
      +4

      The solution to bad speech should never be blocking, it should be more speech.

      Think it should be education>being well informed (including by Wikileaks)>discussions and debates.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/03/2019 - 07:55
        -4

        Lots of down votes! If you are debating Nazis, the Nazis have already won. All they need is exposure to legitimise and spread their views

        • meowbert on 22/03/2019 - 14:33
          +2

          Calling everyone a Nazi is intelectually lazy. If you want to change minds you need to understand other people's viewpoints, even if you dislike them.

          • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 08:38
            -2

            @meowbert: Why would you call everyone a nazi? What is wrong with you?

      • Gnostikos on 22/03/2019 - 23:08
        -1

        The solution to white supremacy is shutting it down.

        Stop parroting this nonsense pushed by lazy media outlets who haven't bothered to read Tarrant's manifesto.

        White supremacists do not claim the country with the closest political and social values to their own is China, nor would they describe themselves as Communists turned Anarchists turned Libertarians turned "Eco-Fascists". They also would generally support Trump as a leader, as opposed to Tarrant, and they certainly wouldn't describe the nation of Pakistan as a beautiful country filled with warm and hospitable people. Heck, they would never have set foot in countries like Pakistan and North Korea. They also tend to be strongly in support of the 2nd Amendment/gun ownership and wouldn't deliberately set out to undermine it like Tarrant explicitly said he did.

        The only thing we know for certain about Brenton Tarrant is that he wrote a giant, self-contradictory, ideologically-challenged pile of sh*t that makes no sense from a logical point of view and he seems to have been far more concerned about being worshipped by as many people as possible for the notoriety he achieved.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2019 - 08:41
          -2

          Stop pushing this nonsense.

          Look media outlets love to platform Nazis and white supremacists, so don't go telling me that deplatforming these people is something that media outlets do.

          Your first paragraph was wrong so I didn't read the rest

          • Gnostikos on 27/03/2019 - 13:38
            -1

            @[Deactivated]: And the media are infallible, truth-telling organisations that actually report the facts and always have been?

            Don't worry I won't read any of your replies either when you begin your argument with retarded assumptions like that.

            Their portrayal of Tarrant fits the convenient, politically-correct angle of white guilt, unchecked immigration and dividing people along racial/ethnic/religious lines; but the reality I'm afraid is much more nuanced and unfortunately for the uncritically-thinking masses such as yourself, it isn't as easy as ABC 1, 2, 3.

            Don't worry though, you can return to sticking your head in the sand and believing reality will always been spoon-fed to you by corporations and politicians who have it in their best interests to deceive you.

            • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2019 - 08:13
              -2

              @Gnostikos: You sure took a lot of words to say nothing

      • Thaal Sinestro on 23/03/2019 - 02:15
        -1

        They're not supremacists so much as they are conservatives. They're not trying to take over the world and force everyone else to convert to their ideology (like Muslims are). They just want to preserve their culture and traditions, traditions which are being eroded by mass immigration from alien countries and progressivist governments with anti-white agendas. I visited Stormfront, and this is the first thing I saw: "We are White Nationalists who support true diversity and a homeland for all peoples, including ours. We are the voice of the new, embattled White minority!"

    • abb on 21/03/2019 - 11:54
      +3

      While I agree that censorship is a potentially dangerous tool, there are rightfully laws against certain types of speech. Racial vilification, child sex abuse material, and so on. No-one should give these kinds of speech safe harbour. Any place that does, invariably turns to a feedback loop where all the sensible people depart, leaving only the vile extremists to reinforce each other and feel normalised in their extremism.

      "Oh there should be more speech" is a bit of a thought-terminating cliche IMO. No-one has the time or will to constantly enter these lairs of villainy and try to convince the scum therein to be less scummy. Maybe give it a try some time and prove me wrong. But I'm pretty sure they'll abuse you until you give in and leave. Then they'll feel more vindicated that they won against their nasty oppressors…

  • HighAndDry on 20/03/2019 - 14:56

    Edit: Dammit didn't read to the part where you know this is a DNS block.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2019 - 14:57
    +11

    Aussie Broadband don't block sh!t

    • havebeerbelywillsumo on 20/03/2019 - 16:06

      Yes but is that written into policy or only what they are doing today?

      As for any mention of iinet - don't forget they are no longer an independent (and previously so upstanding) firm, being now owned by TPG.

  • vicosads on 20/03/2019 - 15:24
    +23

    censoring discussion is the complete opposite of what should be done right now

    • Wystri Warrick on 20/03/2019 - 22:07
      +1

      Amen!

      • vicosads on 21/03/2019 - 12:06
        +8

        where are these 'open' places you speak of? facebook? twitter? reddit? LMAO

        • MessyG on 21/03/2019 - 20:12
          -1

          Where is your argument to the text above? Whatabouttisms are basically saying "you're right but these guys do it too". FB, Twitter and Reddit while still cesspits of strangely angry and somewhat deranged people who exist across the entire political and religious spectrums, do try a lot harder than the aforementioned to moderate their content. They have not been successful. But they've been a lot more successful than the above.

      • This Guy on 21/03/2019 - 15:10
        -1

        The ban is on hotbed, unmoderated echo chambers which have now proven to create terrorists.

        Pete Breidahl warned police about mentally ill members of the Bruce Rifle Club years ago. Those friendships where the echo chamber. NPR has a longer piece on it which I wont link as it names a terrorist which NZ has asked not to be publicly named.

        I am open to you changing my mined, but please back up your claims with proof.

        • Dot points prove you can format
        • They imply the author is too lazy to write in sentences
        • They normally refer separate components of the same concept and should not be used to build on one another, as that's the point of a sentence
        • Yes, I see the irony in using dot points exactly the same way you did
        • This Guy on 22/03/2019 - 01:49

          Sorry, building ideas is the point of a paragraph, not a sentence.

      • Gnostikos on 22/03/2019 - 22:55
        +10

        8chan knew about the attack and didnt report it to the police

        This is like saying "OzBargain knew something".

        Oversimplification.

        A user assumed to be Brenton Tarrant posted a single thread on 8Chan on the day of the attack (which was automatically mirrored on Voat by bots) that made reference to a non-specific attack "against the invaders" and shared links to his manifesto. There was no mention of geographic locale, time frame, the means of attack or even that Muslims were being targeted. 8Chan was literally created as an autistic troll's paradise and such a post, even if it contained actually useful clues, could easily have been dismissed as troll-bait.

        Tarrant didn't personally ring up all several million active users of 8Chan as if he knew them on a first name-basis to inform them of his plans.

        Archived 8Chan web pages show the original post on 8Chan was up a few hours before the attack commenced and received maybe a few dozen visitors before the video began streaming. It certainly wasn't like the thread was on the home page of 8Chan for an entire month in advance and received a record amount of visitors and posts.

        This is like collectively impugning OzBargain if a troll post linking to illegal content is left unnoticed on this site for a day or so, before our small team of moderators remove it.

        8Chan isn't hosted in New Zealand or Australia nor operated by NZ/AU citizens and is thus not bound to our laws, unlike the Five Eyes intelligence alliance which New Zealand is a part of and which do have a sworn duty to protect their respective nation's national security and failed to pick up on any threats regarding the attack, including the 30 or so parliamentary email addresses which were sent copies of Brenton Tarrant's manifesto (one of which was Jacinda Arden's office) around 10 minutes or more before the attacks began, despite these very same intelligence agencies' continual warnings about the dangers of online platforms becoming vehicles for extremist propaganda, including specifically Facebook. That's not even touching upon all of other glaring red flags about Brenton Tarrant's life story that should have raised suspicion with authorities: repeated travel to multiple nations designated as hotbeds of terrorism/rogue states (Pakistan, Turkey, North Korea), huge quantities of firearms and ammunition purchases, extensive training/preparation for the attacks at gun ranges, etc.

        After the attack they praised the attacker and hailed him as a hero

        If you're judging solely by the replies to his original thread, there were somewhere in the region of 700 - +1,000 replies.

        Some people did praise him, some users told him not to go through with the attack, others strongly disagreed with his actions because of the inevitable backlash against their communities that would result in the wake of this attack and others criticised his actions due to the futility of achieving any kind of change through indiscriminate terrorist acts.

        Even on 8Chan or Voat, there are dissenting opinions and contrarians.

        Narrow-minded stubbornness will make things look a lot worse than they really are, but outrage is relative.

        There is truly inhuman and depraved trophy footage created by outfits like ISIS or the Mexican cartels that is designed to glorify incredibly sick acts, which somehow manages to find a captive audience globally. We're here talking about reprehensible online comments on a forum community. Don't lose sight of the real evils in this world; there's unfathomable injustice that goes unchecked and us detached, sheltered Westerners believe we have the luxury of working our way down to nasty online comments left by angsty teens.

        There's no discussion being had on there. Just kids an echo chamber of misinformation, hatred and immature minds being radicalised and leading to the Christchurch incident.

        The perpetrator spent very little time discussing anything on 8Chan, 4Chan or Voat. There have been at most 3 or 4 posts attributed to him on any of those sites that actually do fit the bill, and all of them contain sh*t-posting nonsense for the most part.

        Tarrant was piggy-backing on the controversy and notoriety of sites like 8Chan to catapult his own ideology into the world's attention. His conviction in or solidarity with such sites is questionable at best. He seems to have been the textbook definition of an agent provocateur.

        The world is better off without 4chan & 8han, I'd like to see anyone prove that it isn't.

        Subjective.

        The only rights that matter are the rights of the people you disagree with, ala Martin Niemoller's "First they came…" poem. The presence of opposition, dissent and civil disobedience mean you still have some vestiges of democratic ideals to cling to.

        I feel the world is better off without Kim Kardashian, Kendall Jenner, Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift, Arianna Grande, et al.

        But I won't for a second demand that their voices be censored.

        That precedent sets the stage for a free-wheeling censorship campaign that ends up silencing and discrediting any and all voices that don't fit the bill of consensus reality-accepted thought and speech, which of course, is to be determined by our ever-trusthworthy corporate oligarchies like Telstra and their uncomfortably close benefactors in politics, who will play the role of an omnipotent morality and ethics board to dictate to millions of people what is definitively "right" and "wrong".

        It's an extremely dangerous downward spiral that has played out countless times throughout history in the rise of dictators, despots and tyrants who have incrementally subverted the freedom of millions and millions of people via a slow and steady erosion of civil liberties.

        After the 2008 Internet filter debacle and the continual pressure from powerful lobbyists like AFACT, the RIAA and the MPAA to implement ISP-level, DNS blacklisting schemes under the guises of red herrings like stopping online piracy and "protecting the children", we've seen neither side of the spectrum in Australian politics can be trusted when it comes to maintaining access to a free Internet and we don't need to be giving them any more ammunition to further their long-standing agenda.

        The ban is on hotbed, unmoderated echo chambers which have now proven to create terrorists.

        You're missing the forest for the trees. No one on 8Chan actually murdered people save for Tarrant (who was a member for all of 3 posts). No one killed in the name of an online sub-culture. That's just the out-of-touch mainstream media failing to keep up with a world they don't understand; Channel 7 initially believed he was a Navy SEAL because of the manifesto containing the Navy Seals Copypasta meme. Trust those people to relate to the very cutting-edge of geo-politics and popular culture.

        We're not even sure at this point exactly what ideology Brenton was murdering for as his so-called manifesto is about as coherent as a Jackson Pollock painting and he seems to have engaged in a lot of Machiavellian doublespeak to garner lasting notoriety and influence around the world.

        Punitively punishing millions of online users of 8Chan, 4Chan, Voat and millions of unaffiliated Internet users is just shooting the messenger.

        • belongsinforums on 23/03/2019 - 10:03
          +2

          bbbut i get all my news from news.com.au and they said 4chan is bad

      • chriise on 23/03/2019 - 16:18
        +1

        I frequent a number of forums on 4chan on the daily, mostly fit, sport and biz. My access has been restricted because of snowflakes like you who think they have the right to make choices around what others can't and cannot make. Who the hell are you to tell me these communities aren't OK?

  • qwerty on 20/03/2019 - 15:59
    +6

    The last couple years net neutrality was said to be the worst thing for the internet ever .

    Here something similar happens , unannounced and people are cheering it .

    I cant see why they didnt ban reddit as well when voat is pretty much the exact same site but less censored .

  • o53djz7qTPY4der on 20/03/2019 - 16:10
    +6

    VPN combined with pi-hole and fallback DNS to 1.1.1.1 means that the only the only things blocked on my network are advertisements, trackers, telemetry requests.

    • Gunther on 20/03/2019 - 22:09
      +5

      You so coool!

  • outlander on 20/03/2019 - 16:27
    +21

    Alright, so this country is going down the shitter. Where is everyone moving to?

    • EightImmortals on 20/03/2019 - 19:04
      +6

      I'd like to know that too. I hear that China has less censorship and Russia is less Marxist…

      • Wystri Warrick on 20/03/2019 - 22:01

        I call the first crap, but the second very true lol.
        Though come to think of it Russia was never really a Marxist country, heck Stalin even had Trotsky assassinated.

    • Georgevic on 21/03/2019 - 17:41
      -4

      Perhaps a place that doesn't produce white nationalist terrorists would be good.

      • brendanm on 21/03/2019 - 18:09
        +4

        Is that you Recep Tayyip Erdogan? Would other sorts of terrorists be acceptable to you?

        • Georgevic on 21/03/2019 - 18:18
          -1

          I guess for you, white nationalist terrorism is good? What a surprise.

          For me, it's none - believe it or not, there are many that don't produce any - unlike Australia.

          • brendanm on 21/03/2019 - 18:38
            +5

            @Georgevic: Where did I say that? The problem was that you selected only one kind of terrorism as being problematic for you, thereby insinuating you don't have a problem with any other kinds. Someone who dislikes terrorism in general would have said "Perhaps a place that doesn't produce terrorists would be good."

            I'm sure there are some that haven't had terrorists, a large number have had though. One from Australia isn't too bad considering many countries have had endless streams of them.

            • stinkydog on 21/03/2019 - 18:51
              +2

              @brendanm: Check out Georgevics' other comments, pretty sure he's either a screw loose or trolling.

              • brendanm on 21/03/2019 - 20:17
                +2

                @stinkydog: It's funny, he's very upset about the Christchurch idiot, but seems unperturbed by the 150 odd Australians that went and joined a known terrorist organisation over the last few years. Doesn't seem very consistent.

                • MessyG on 21/03/2019 - 21:12
                  -5

                  @brendanm: Joining an Islamic terrorist organisation operating in very foreign soil != murdering 50 New Zealanders because your angry about the loss of 'white male culture' (the terrorists words). And you need to amend the above to 'known idiot organisation' if you're going to refer to the Christchuch terrorist as an 'idiot' (which makes me feel a liiiiiittle worried you can't recognise a terrorist).

                  • brendanm on 22/03/2019 - 17:28
                    +5

                    @MessyG: Are you honestly suggesting that because some killing happened further away that it doesn't matter as much?

                    You may want to reread my comments, one of them literally states he is a terrorist, and they all suggest that he is. Just to reiterate if reading comprehension isn't your strong suite, he is 100% unequivocally a terrorist. If someone does something to instill terror in a certain group of people, they are a terrorist. It's pretty simple. There are Muslim terrorists, Irish terrorists, white supremacist terrorists etc. No matter what they are, they are terrorists if trying to terrorise. I can just see people frothing to call me a bigot, so that should clear it up for you.

                    The fact that you seem to think this one person, with a single attack, is worse than the 150 Australians who killed far more than 49 people, raped women and children, and helped to displace millions of people from their homes is quite worrying.

                    • belongsinforums on 23/03/2019 - 10:05

                      @brendanm: missg has spent the last week attacking people who stated facts about the attacks. ignore

      • Gnostikos on 22/03/2019 - 23:11
        +3

        Perhaps a place that doesn't produce white nationalist terrorists would be good.

        Conclusively labelling him a white nationalist proves you haven't read Tarrant's manifesto.

        White nationalists do not claim the country with the closest political and social values to their own is China, nor would they describe themselves as Communists turned Anarchists turned Libertarians turned "Eco-Fascists". They also would generally support Trump as a leader, as opposed to Tarrant, and they certainly wouldn't describe the nation of Pakistan as a beautiful country filled with warm and hospitable people. Heck, they would never have set foot in countries like Pakistan and North Korea. They also tend to be strongly in support of the 2nd Amendment/gun ownership and wouldn't deliberately set out to undermine it like Tarrant explicitly said he did.

        The only thing we know for certain about Brenton Tarrant is that he wrote a giant, self-contradictory, ideologically-challenged pile of sh*t that makes no sense from a logical point of view and he seems to have been far more concerned about being worshipped by as many people as possible for the notoriety he achieved.

    • MessyG on 21/03/2019 - 20:14
      +1

      The Democratic People's Republic of Korea! Being a democracy and all, you can be sure to go nuts on social media all you like!

    • prinsenhof on 21/03/2019 - 20:48

      Canada seems really good. Can walk your dog in the national parks, bears seemed quite friendly. Although i was in full winter gear and freezing my arse off and all the locals were wearing shorts so…..

      • outlander on 21/03/2019 - 23:17
        +2

        Canada has legal weed, so thats true, but the PM Trudeu is taking the country to hell with his political correctness

        • chriise on 23/03/2019 - 16:22

          Compelled speech..

    • boomramada on 22/03/2019 - 16:06

      VPN

      • outlander on 22/03/2019 - 16:27
        +1

        VPN's a workaround. It solves this problem, but what about the next one. And there's going to be a next one. What if they blacklist VPN's?

  • Blue Cat on 20/03/2019 - 17:58

    The good old Google Translate trick still works without any DNS changes or VPN, but doesn't show up the images for me. Try that!

  • Wystri Warrick on 20/03/2019 - 21:51
    +5

    Somewhat relevant a few years ago there were some leaks, the Snowden leaks I think they were, Telstra allowed the NSA to monitor all its traffic and stuff, in return for this back door Telstra received $$$.
    I won't be doing business with Tel$tra, not just because of their over inflated prices and bad customer support but because they created a back door for a foreign intelligence agency to spy on it's customers, to spy on me for $$$.
    If government agencies have reason to believe that a person poses a danger to public safety, they should be required to get a warrant from a judge, it should be done in a democratic way, not drag net surveillance that's draconian.

    Here's a great list of VPN's, set it to say Iceland or some Scandinavian country.

    Also some interesting trivia, about nearly 10 years ago when labour was in government (not that there's much difference between Lib and Lab) Australia was going to introduce it's own great wall, some of the sites that were to be blocked were a dentistry, a vet and Wikileaks, under pressure from the US no doubt.

    • Clear on 20/03/2019 - 22:30
      +4

      Somewhat relevant a few years ago there were some leaks, the Snowden leaks I think they were, Telstra allowed the NSA to monitor all its traffic and stuff, in return for this back door Telstra received $$$.

      Years ago someone on Whirlpool found proof that his Telstra traffic was being intercepted. I can't remember if he noted it being a foreign entity, but definitely something suss with Telstra. Turns out he was right!

      • Wystri Warrick on 20/03/2019 - 22:37

        Yes I remember reading that on Whirlpool.

    • abb on 21/03/2019 - 11:47
      +2

      All internet traffic should be treated as if it's being read by the five eyes, because it probably is. IMO you can't blame Telstra, they were most likely compelled to comply. Check out the recent-ish telecommunications access and assistance bill…

      • outlander on 21/03/2019 - 18:42

        Telstra has been involved with the US and spying since its public ownership days. There's a US serveillance base in the NT called Pine Gap, and from what I've been told Telstra gets big government contracts to maintain the lines or something.

  • rompastompa on 20/03/2019 - 22:10

    Amnet haven't been blocking. Their consumer brand is now iPrimus/Dodo, so not sure for new subscribers.

  • savage bargain on 21/03/2019 - 09:56

    Mate (uses Vocus) aren't blocking.

  • Okayy on 21/03/2019 - 12:18

    Use your awareness

  • gomelbcityfc on 21/03/2019 - 12:27
    -4

    FTW is going on here? Even newspapers (SMH) have pulled stories from online.

    People, why is Australia doing this? He wasnt even an Aussie

    Apparently Serb historical national music was played in background, he had Serb, Bulgarian and Montenegro historical figures' names on the guns

    As with many of these types of incidents we may never find out who he really was, or wherehe really came from.

    I have not seen the footage, or the music, or any otber coverage, but now I'm curious. Must be something bigger going on.

    Source

    http://ba.n1info.com/English/NEWS/a322274/Christchurch-gunma…

    https://www.rferl.org/a/christchurch-attacks-yugoslavia-tarr…

    • Lockieasy on 21/03/2019 - 12:52

      People, why is Australia doing this? He wasnt even an Aussie

      Huh? Yes he is. He is from Grafton NSW and his family still lives there from what I heard.

      As with many of these types of incidents we may never find out who he really was, or wherehe really came from.

      His name is in the articles you linked and he wrote a lengthy (and deranged) manifesto about why he did the shooting. I won't get into the details other than it was definitely motivated by islamophobia.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join